Aaron Bradbury, early years lecturer and author explains:
‘We were approached by the Bright Futures Stronger Practice Hub back in 2022 to be a keynote speaker at their launch event in March 2023. I had agreed to speak about the importance of nurture and how child development is the bedrock of our practice.
‘Three days before the event I received a call from the event organiser explaining that she had been to a stronger practice hub meeting with NCB and DfE.
‘From this meeting a conversation had pursued with the organiser about whether Ruth and I were suitable speakers.
‘They had told the organiser that they had concerns due to us being “critical” of DfE policies. Following this conversation, we were then told that we may not be able to speak at all.
‘The cancellation did not go ahead, but stipulations, including checking our presentation and moving our presentation online were suggested.
‘We did not want to speak online as there were over a hundred people attending on both days. We refused to move to an online format and also questioned the policing of our slides but did send these to the Stronger Practice Hub. We were informed that certain slides had to be removed.
‘This included removal of reference to non-statutory guidance, including Birth to 5 Matters. The event went ahead and was a huge success with positive feedback from delegates.
‘However, we had already sent an email to the DfE asking for an explanation as to why we were deemed to be unsuitable to speak at the event and seek clarification.
‘The reply to this email was not forthcoming and we were told that a meeting would happen in due course. It took a few weeks for Ruth and me to arrange a meeting with the DfE.
‘The whole experience led me to apply for a subject access request to the DfE, which showed that there were conversations being had within the DfE. There are Tweets where I had been critical, which had been screenshot and shared in the department.
‘There was an email from a DfE worker saying that I had not been critical of the DfE, however. So why was I being given this level of scrutiny and possible cancellation in the first place?
‘At the same time as these checks taking place, I was already working with the DfE on a project to look at recruitment and retention in the sector which was set up by the DfE.
‘I had no issues with the DfE or the colleagues I worked with on this group. The whole saga has cast and left an element of doubt.
‘I would like the DfE to formally apologise for discussing my professionalism and work.
‘I want to continue to work with the hubs and see the vital work and support they are offering to our children and families. I want them to agree that there have been no issues so that there is a way forwards instead of a focus on political interference.
‘The Bright Futures Stronger Practice hub have acted with complete integrity and professionalism over this and they have always wanted to support the sector, children and hub and it was a pleasure to work alongside them for the event.’
Ruth Swailes, trainer and author explains:
‘I supported two applicants with the bidding process for the stronger practice hub. One was successful. The hub lead invited Aaron and I to speak in January. I rejigged my diary to make this work. My understanding is that the hub submitted their chosen speaker list in January so the DfE could carry out their due diligence, and we were deemed suitable.
‘Less than 48 hours before we were due to travel to the event, we were contacted by the leader of the Stronger Practice Hub. They told us that a representative of the NCB had approached her at a meeting to say that the DfE had concerns about our suitability to speak and that the event would have to be changed.
‘The leader explained that without us there would be no event. She also said that she would speak to the DfE (who were present at the event where this discussion took place) but she was not allowed to approach them.
After some time, we were told the event would have to be online.
‘I believe that because we sought legal advice we were allowed to speak in person in the end, however we were asked to remove a reference to Birth to 5 Matters in our slides, but we refused.
‘Aaron’s slide referenced Birth to 5, mine didn’t. Mine actually referenced the DfE statutory framework – which I was using in a positive light.
‘We then contacted the DfE to ask for a meeting which we eventually got. I asked what it was that made us unsuitable and was told that some people had been very unkind about Government documents on Twitter [now known as X].
‘The DfE representatives apologised for the way the whole debacle was handled but would not share details of the accusations. I then submitted two SARs (subject access requests), which showed the DfE is keeping a log of my tweets, including ones that have nothing to do with education.
‘While I have criticised some aspects of the EYFS reforms (the removal of SSM and the focus on tripod grip which is in danger of pathologizing typical child development), I have always given a measured approach. I have been positive about many of the reforms and working with many early adopters to lead training and development to implement them.
‘As for Development Matters, I present a balanced view on this, in my training I talk about the strengths of the document and how practitioners might use it, I have never criticised in on Twitter – I genuinely think they must have me confused with someone else. A statement in the SAR shows that the DfE couldn’t find any evidence of this either.
‘Speaking out will probably cost me dearly in some circles, but I think people have a right to know. All I ever wanted to do was share my knowledge of building a curriculum which fits within the statutory framework and supports young children’s development. That shouldn’t be too controversial, surely?’